5 ms·

There’s going to be a ton of comments on the lab security aspects, but there are two other big takeaways from this article: 1) Researchers easily found multipl

There’s going to be a ton of comments on the lab security aspects, but there are two other big takeaways from this article: 1) Researchers easily found multiple naturally occurring coronaviruses that seemed likely to be able to jump into humans. In fact that is why they were so eager to conduct that lab research: the natural threat seemed imminent. 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted.

imiric 5y ago
> 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted. This doesn't discount the possibility of a lab leak if you take into account that some sequences appear to have been deleted[1]. We shouldn't make assumptions based on lack of evidence if that evidence was tampered with. And given China's history of deliberately concealing facts to save face, this raises far more questions than it answers. We need a serious and trustworthy investigation into what happened that puts politics aside. Alas my hopes for that happening are slim to none. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-sequences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in February 2020, I believe). They are not bat coronavirus sequences, which is what the poster above you is referring to. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes the sequences it discovers. RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was published in 2016, for example. Even if we're talking about the patient data, even though the authors withdrew their raw data from a database, they still published the most important information in a paper: the genetic sequences.
  - imiric 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      There was no "manipulation of patient data." The authors withdrew their raw data from a database, and then published the summary data (what most people will actually want to know) in a paper. The summary data matches the raw data (later recovered from the cloud). > Could you link to this please? It's in Table 1 of their June 2020 paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002... > If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. The patient data had nothing to do with bat sequences. The paper we're talking about was a methodology paper, in which the authors were trying to test a new sequencing technology using recent patient samples. They were not focusing on SARS-CoV-2 origins, and they certainly weren't working with bat coronavirus sequences. I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute.
      - imiric 5y ago
        There certainly was deliberate deletion of raw patient sequence data from the NCBI database. See the paper by Jesse D. Bloom that the NYT article references[1]. I would classify this as "manipulation". The author is also puzzled why this was done if the data matches the published summary in the Wang et al. 2020b paper, but hasn't received any replies from the authors. This is also interesting: > Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to maximize information about viral sequences from early in the Wuhan epidemic. > I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute. The authors of the nanopore paper are associated with Wuhan University. Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research it's safe to say that a connection with the WIV certainly exists and they would be in a position to control the output of both. Again, the reason behind this will likely never be known to the outside world. But to take anything coming from Chinese researchers as evidence for a narrative that exculpates China from any fault would be extremely naive. Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.... [2]: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn
arisAlexis 5y ago
How do you know 2? It is documented that the Chinese deleted sequences from a global database. Also how naive can we be thinking they have given WHO access to all the research? They didn't. So remove argument 2.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > It is documented that the Chinese deleted sequences from a global database. You're referring to something completely different, which has nothing to do with bat coronavirus research or the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A group of researchers working on new sequencing techniques for patient samples (not bat coronaviruses) withdrew their raw data from a database. They then published the key data in a peer-reviewed journal.[1] It's better to have the raw data, but it's not as if the researchers hid their results. And again, this has nothing to do with bat coronaviruses or the WIV. The WIV publishes the viruses it discovers. They published RaTG13, which is now recognized as the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 (but not the progenitor), in 2016. WIV scientists regularly publish papers, give talks at scientific conferences, and collaborate with international scientists. We have a very good idea of what they had and what viruses they were working with. Nobody from the WIV ever mentioned anything that looks like SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic began. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202002169
  - EMM_386 5y ago
    What about the purging that took place early in the virus (not this most recent "database purge" ... which as you point out may not be the important one. March 2020: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-scientists-destroyed-proof-of-virus-in-december-rz055qjnj https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-scientists-destro...
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      You mean the order to either transfer patient samples to more secure labs or destroy them? That's standard biosecurity when a new, dangerous pathogen is discovered. Regulatory agencies in other countries would have done the same thing. A bunch of patient samples were sent out to diagnostic labs before anyone knew they contained a novel coronavirus. You can imagine regulators freaking out when they discover those samples contain a new, possibly dangerous virus.
iancmceachern 5y ago
This type of comment is what I come to HN for. Thank you.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Have an surprisingly excellent article in the new republic while you're here: https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-leak-theory https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-lea...
rrll22 5y ago
2) ZXC21/ZX45 87% https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662-X.pdf https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662...
salawat 5y ago
Incorrect. The RBD was a 90+ percent match to a pangolin coronavirus, the backbone was 90% + match to a sample collected from bats in Guangdong if I recall correctly, and you had GoF techniques in play that enabled seamless porting of nucleotide sequences that left no traces of gene edits. We've gone over it in previous articles... Capabilities. Not motivations. Never ever lose sight of that. You will never know what makes another human being tick or do what they do, but you can definitely establish an upper bound on the trouble they can get themselves in to.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  A 10% difference is massive for a 30k-base virus. In the public mind, "gain of function" has gained the aura of some sort of black magic, but creating SARS-CoV-2 from any combination of known viruses is beyond the capability of any lab. The amount of effort you'd have to put into it would be astronomical, and all for no apparent scientific reason. This line of speculation really is completely separated from reality.
  - kjaftaedi 5y ago
    I recommend taking the time to read the article, they cover this pretty well. It seems that even of this were manufactured, it is not likely intentional. >The Chinese research did not have the specific goal of making the viruses more deadly, and rather than SARS itself, it used SARS’s close cousins, whose real-world risk to humans was unknown—in fact, determining the risk was the point of the research. Just as when you trade in part of a poker hand for fresh cards, there was no way of knowing whether the final chimeras would be stronger or weaker.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      The problem for this speculation is that given the types of experiments the WIV is known to have done, it is impossible to produce anything that looks remotely like SARS-CoV-2. The reverse genetics system used by WIV researchers is well known, and SARS-CoV-2 is simply not a product of it.

imiric 5y ago

> 2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted. This doesn't discount the possibility of a lab leak if you take into account that some sequences appear to have been deleted[1]. We shouldn't make assumptions based on lack of evidence if that evidence was tampered with. And given China's history of deliberately concealing facts to save face, this raises far more questions than it answers. We need a serious and trustworthy investigation into what happened that puts politics aside. Alas my hopes for that happening are slim to none. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-sequences.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
> some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in February 2020, I believe). They are not bat coronavirus sequences, which is what the poster above you is referring to. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes the sequences it discovers. RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was published in 2016, for example. Even if we're talking about the patient data, even though the authors withdrew their raw data from a database, they still published the most important information in a paper: the genetic sequences.
- imiric 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    There was no "manipulation of patient data." The authors withdrew their raw data from a database, and then published the summary data (what most people will actually want to know) in a paper. The summary data matches the raw data (later recovered from the cloud). > Could you link to this please? It's in Table 1 of their June 2020 paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002... > If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. The patient data had nothing to do with bat sequences. The paper we're talking about was a methodology paper, in which the authors were trying to test a new sequencing technology using recent patient samples. They were not focusing on SARS-CoV-2 origins, and they certainly weren't working with bat coronavirus sequences. I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute.
    - imiric 5y ago
      There certainly was deliberate deletion of raw patient sequence data from the NCBI database. See the paper by Jesse D. Bloom that the NYT article references[1]. I would classify this as "manipulation". The author is also puzzled why this was done if the data matches the published summary in the Wang et al. 2020b paper, but hasn't received any replies from the authors. This is also interesting: > Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to maximize information about viral sequences from early in the Wuhan epidemic. > I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute. The authors of the nanopore paper are associated with Wuhan University. Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research it's safe to say that a connection with the WIV certainly exists and they would be in a position to control the output of both. Again, the reason behind this will likely never be known to the outside world. But to take anything coming from Chinese researchers as evidence for a narrative that exculpates China from any fault would be extremely naive. Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.... [2]: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

arisAlexis 5y ago

How do you know 2? It is documented that the Chinese deleted sequences from a global database. Also how naive can we be thinking they have given WHO access to all the research? They didn't. So remove argument 2.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
> It is documented that the Chinese deleted sequences from a global database. You're referring to something completely different, which has nothing to do with bat coronavirus research or the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A group of researchers working on new sequencing techniques for patient samples (not bat coronaviruses) withdrew their raw data from a database. They then published the key data in a peer-reviewed journal.[1] It's better to have the raw data, but it's not as if the researchers hid their results. And again, this has nothing to do with bat coronaviruses or the WIV. The WIV publishes the viruses it discovers. They published RaTG13, which is now recognized as the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 (but not the progenitor), in 2016. WIV scientists regularly publish papers, give talks at scientific conferences, and collaborate with international scientists. We have a very good idea of what they had and what viruses they were working with. Nobody from the WIV ever mentioned anything that looks like SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic began. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202002169
- EMM_386 5y ago
  What about the purging that took place early in the virus (not this most recent "database purge" ... which as you point out may not be the important one. March 2020: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-scientists-destroyed-proof-of-virus-in-december-rz055qjnj https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-scientists-destro...
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    You mean the order to either transfer patient samples to more secure labs or destroy them? That's standard biosecurity when a new, dangerous pathogen is discovered. Regulatory agencies in other countries would have done the same thing. A bunch of patient samples were sent out to diagnostic labs before anyone knew they contained a novel coronavirus. You can imagine regulators freaking out when they discover those samples contain a new, possibly dangerous virus.

iancmceachern 5y ago

This type of comment is what I come to HN for. Thank you.

lamontcg 5y ago
Have an surprisingly excellent article in the new republic while you're here: https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-leak-theory https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-lea...

rrll22 5y ago

2) ZXC21/ZX45 87% https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662-X.pdf https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662...

salawat 5y ago

Incorrect. The RBD was a 90+ percent match to a pangolin coronavirus, the backbone was 90% + match to a sample collected from bats in Guangdong if I recall correctly, and you had GoF techniques in play that enabled seamless porting of nucleotide sequences that left no traces of gene edits. We've gone over it in previous articles... Capabilities. Not motivations. Never ever lose sight of that. You will never know what makes another human being tick or do what they do, but you can definitely establish an upper bound on the trouble they can get themselves in to.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
A 10% difference is massive for a 30k-base virus. In the public mind, "gain of function" has gained the aura of some sort of black magic, but creating SARS-CoV-2 from any combination of known viruses is beyond the capability of any lab. The amount of effort you'd have to put into it would be astronomical, and all for no apparent scientific reason. This line of speculation really is completely separated from reality.
- kjaftaedi 5y ago
  I recommend taking the time to read the article, they cover this pretty well. It seems that even of this were manufactured, it is not likely intentional. >The Chinese research did not have the specific goal of making the viruses more deadly, and rather than SARS itself, it used SARS’s close cousins, whose real-world risk to humans was unknown—in fact, determining the risk was the point of the research. Just as when you trade in part of a poker hand for fresh cards, there was no way of knowing whether the final chimeras would be stronger or weaker.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    The problem for this speculation is that given the types of experiments the WIV is known to have done, it is impossible to produce anything that looks remotely like SARS-CoV-2. The reverse genetics system used by WIV researchers is well known, and SARS-CoV-2 is simply not a product of it.